See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343539798

Agroforestry governance for operationalising the landscape approach:

connecting conservation and farming actors Agroforestry for Sustainable
Landscape Management

Article  in  Sustainability Science · August 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s11625-020-00840-8

CITATION READS

1 112

13 authors, including:

Yves Zinngrebe Brian Chiputwa

Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
26 PUBLICATIONS   266 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   258 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Edwin Garcia Anja Gassner

CATIE - Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
10 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   631 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable Futures for Europe’s Heritage in Cultural landscapes: Tools for Understanding, Managing, and Protecting Landscape Functions and Values (HERCULES)
View project

Mapping values of urban forests: cultural ecosystem services of three urban woodlands in Germany's South West. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Chiputwa on 12 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sustainability Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00840-8

SPECIAL FEATURE: ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Agroforestry for Sustainable Landscape Management

Agroforestry governance for operationalising the landscape approach:

connecting conservation and farming actors
Yves Zinngrebe1,11   · Elena Borasino2 · Brian Chiputwa3 · Philip Dobie3 · Edwin Garcia4 · Anja Gassner5 ·
Phillip Kihumuro6 · Heru Komarudin7 · Nining Liswanti7 · Permutia Makui3 · Tobias Plieninger1,8 · Etti Winter9 ·
Jennifer Hauck10

Received: 21 December 2019 / Accepted: 10 July 2020

© The Author(s) 2020

Abstract
The expansion and intensification of agriculture as well as the associated land clearing are threatening both biodiversity and
human wellbeing in tropical areas. Implementing agroforestry systems through a landscape approach has a strong potential for
integrating nature conservation objectives into agricultural systems. A key challenge for implementing the landscape approach
is that political processes and conservation initiatives operate in ‘silos’, being largely disconnected from farmers and local
key agents responsible for tree governance. In this study we brought together different stakeholders in facilitated, structured
focus discussions to analyse the role of actor groups in tree governance. We used social network analysis to quantitatively
and qualitatively analyse agroforestry governance networks and actor interactions related to information exchange, finance
flows, and regulation. The analyses were conducted at national, sub-national and local levels in four countries: Honduras,
Peru, Indonesia, and Uganda. Using trees on farms as a boundary object enabled all participants to bridge common interests
and illuminate some of the constraints and opportunities of local governance systems while overcoming institutional and
ideological barriers. The quantitative results of the social network analysis identify a strong density of actor linkages. Despite
this density, results indicate incoherent and fragmented actor networks undermining the support for agroforestry on all levels.
Nevertheless, existing processes related to finance, information, and regulation can be better aligned to ensure an effective
implementation and mainstreaming of agroforestry for biodiversity conservation. Building social capital among key actors
on both national and local levels can reveal a strong potential for adaptive learning processes mainstreaming agroforestry
as essential component of “good farming” and integrating incentive systems for a coherent and effective agroforestry gov-
ernance. We conclude that redirecting both public and private funding towards continuous seed-funding for the facilitation
of these integrated learning processes can transform landscape management and at the same time reduce transaction costs.

Keywords  Social capital · Adaptive capacity · Biodiversity · Aichi target 7 · Social network analysis · Net-Map

Handled by José Muñoz-Rojas, Universidade de Évora, Portugal.

Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this

article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-020-00840​-8) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

6
* Yves Zinngrebe World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Kampala, Uganda
yves.zinngrebe@ufz.de 7
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor,
1 Indonesia
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
8
2 Universität Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany
Grupo de Análisis Para El Desarrollo (GRADE), Lima, Peru
9
3 Leibnitz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany
World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya
10
4 CoKnow Consulting, Jesewitz, Germany
Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación Y Enseñanza
11
(CATIE), Tegucigalpa, Honduras Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig,
5 Germany
World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Los Banos, Philippines

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Introduction
Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into agriculture
is of utmost importance to reduce biodiversity loss and to
enable sustainable landscape management. While govern-
mental efforts have focussed on extending the protected area
network, Aichi target 7 of the Convention for Biological
Diversity (CBD) calls for sustainable agriculture supporting
biodiversity and ecosystem functions, such as connectivity
and habitat stability (CBD 2010). At present, however, the
expansion of intensified agriculture and related land-use
changes are major threats to biodiversity (IPBES 2019),
often leading to conflicting interests between the different
actors involved in the governance of agricultural landscapes
(Laurance et al. 2014). It is the responsibility of CBD mem-
ber states to develop National Strategies and Action Plans
(NBSAPs) that translate the target of sustainable manage-
ment of agricultural landscapes into national action while
coordinating production and conservation (CBD 1992). The
landscape approach bears the potential of bringing multiple
stakeholders together using a common problem to facilitate
a collaborative negotiation and at best a joint learning pro-
cess (Sayer et al. 2013). Assuming that boundary objects
can facilitate the exchange and comparison of different
actors over common elements of interest (Leigh Star 2010;
Schleyer et al. 2017), trees on farms forming agroforestry
systems have potential to bring together actors interested
in improving ecosystem stability in tropical landscapes and
support local livelihoods.
Agroforestry has been defined as the combination of
trees with agricultural crops or livestock in an integrated
farm management (Fagerholm et al. 2016). As central ele-
ment of agroforestry systems, trees can be integrated as for
instance individual fruit trees or shade trees on pasture, or as
patches such as woodlots and orchards or hedges to secure
production and benefits to all land-users (van Noordwijk
2019; Somarriba et al. 2017; Dobie et al. 2019). Agrofor-
estry has been promoted for its many provisioning ecosystem
services that often result in diversified income sources for
land users (e.g., food, fodder, timber, non-timber products)
and an overall improvement of livelihoods (Kassie 2018;
FAO 2005, 2019). In sub-Saharan Africa, trees account for
17% of the total gross annual income of those households
(Christiaensen and Demery 2018). Additionally, in agrofor-
estry systems diverse components are spatially and tempo-
rally arranged to mimic natural water and nutrient processes
with less need for artificial inputs like fertilizers, herbicides,
and pesticides, providing important regulating services,
such as improvement of soil fertility, protection against
erosion, water regulation and purification, biodiversity con-
servation, and carbon sequestration (Lorenz and Lal 2014;
HLPE 2019). Their contribution to biodiversity conservation
13
Sustainability Science
ranges from the insects that provide food for birds and pol-
lination services to biological pest control and significantly
increased diversity of soil organisms (Priess et al. 2007;
Barrios et al. 2012; Dawson et al. 2013). Trees on farms
also increase biological connectivity in the landscape, ensur-
ing the integrity of protected area networks (Dawson et al.
2013). Agroforestry systems are a major contribution to the
carbon pool on agricultural lands (Zomer et al. 2016). And
finally, agroforestry systems are linked to cultural ecosystem
services, for instance linked to traditional practices, aesthetic
values, local knowledge or tourism (Jose 2009; Moreno et al.
2018; Torralba et al. 2016; HLPE 2019). Examples for com-
mon agroforestry systems range from silvopastoral systems
in Honduras, to cacao associations in Peru, traditional “tem-
bawang” agroforestry systems in Indonesia (Marjokorpi and
Ruokolainen 2003), or small scale coffee farming in Uganda.
In all these countries, agroforestry systems are deployed as
a strategy to counterbalance an advancing agricultural fron-
tier that causes deforestation. This corresponds with global
views that consider agroforestry an essential component of
landscape management, including landscape restoration
(Sayer et al. 2013; IUCN and WRI 2014).
Despite the multitude of ecosystem services attributed to
agroforestry systems, the potential of trees on farms remains
largely invisible to both farmers and political actors (Somar-
riba et al. 2017; Chiputwa et al. 2020). As a consequence,
responsibility for agroforestry receives little attention and
is not effectively coordinated across sectors: “In principle,
agroforestry is regarded as belonging to “all sectors”, but
in practice, it belongs to none and rarely occupies a special
line in a governmental body or has its own policy space.
It falls between the agriculture, forestry and environment
departments, with no institution taking a lead role in the
advancement of agroforestry or its integration” (FAO 2013:
10). In practice, institutional fragmentation and bureau-
cratic routines often undermine political coordination and
integration as highlighted in the debates on climate policy
integration (e.g., DiGregorio et al. 2017; Adelle and Russe
2013; Scobie 2016) and environmental policy integration
(Runhaar et al. 2020; Persson and Runhaar 2018; Jordan
and Lenschow 2010). Favourable actor constellations and
institutional arrangements are enabling institutional learning
processes to harmonise governance frameworks (Zinngrebe
2018). Moreover, cooperative actor arrangements between
both governmental and non-governmental actors can offer
leverage points for integrated land management (Karlsson-
Vinkhyzen et al. 2018) and landscape governance (Oosten
et al. 2018).
The social capital concept involves actors building net-
works of trust, exchange, and reciprocity to facilitate joint
action (Rodriguez et al. 2018). While social capital does not
per se lead to environmental protection, some network char-
acteristics have been identified as supportive for collective
Sustainability Science
action and sustainable resource governance (Meinzen-Dick
et al. 2004; Ostrom 2009). Processes of developing an inte-
grative governance system to support agroforestry systems
will therefore depend on the social capital among relevant
actors. Despite the need to understand individual settings
in national and subnational contexts, a comparison across
different case studies will help to generalise insights on
governance of and for agroforestry systems (c.f. Magliocca
et al. 2015).
The aim of our study is to develop an exploratory
approach that compares understandings of actor collabora-
tion, their roles and interactions in agroforestry governance,
by asking the following research questions:
(1) What are structural main characteristics of the agro-
forestry governance networks?
(2) Which are key flows of finance, regulation, and infor-
mation in the national governance networks and to what
extent do they support agroforestry?
(3) Who are the key actors in agroforestry governance and
how do they support sustainable transformation?
Our study is focused on agroforestry in Uganda, Hondu-
ras, Peru, and Indonesia to capture a broad geographical var-
iation of these land-use and governance systems in the trop-
ics. We assume that similarities in governance structures in
these culturally, geographically, and technologically diverse
settings will reveal important leverage points for implement-
ing the landscape approach and harnessing the potential of
agroforestry. After introducing a theoretical framework, case
studies, and methodology, we present the results in response
to the three research questions before discussing possible
entry points for governance interventions.
Analytical approach
Theoretical framework and hypotheses
Our analysis is based on three key assumptions, derived
from the actor networks and governance structures litera-
ture, regarding structural characteristics of actors networks,
specific governance functions, and specific actors.
Firstly, structural characteristics of actor networks can
be interpreted for the purpose of understanding sustainable
transformation and innovation. Social capital assesses the
inter-relationships between individuals (social networks)
and related norms of reciprocity (such as trust), that give
value at both the individual and the collective level, can be
defined (Putnam 2004). In particular, high network densities
of formal and informal links between relevant actors are a
precondition for the diffusion of innovation of agricultural
technology and adaptive capacity of governance networks
(Saint Ville et al. 2016; Bourne et al. 2017; Bodin and Crona
2009; Pretty and Smith 2004). It is important to note that
while the structural attributes of networks are important
indications for actor dynamics, attributes considered impor-
tant for information flow may not always be consistent with
those for collective action. One network feature may in fact
inhibit another and there is a need to balance often oppos-
ing structural characteristics to ensure a beneficial outcome
(Duit et al. 2009; Bodin and Crona 2009). Lack of access to
information is a key barrier to adoption of better agricultural
technologies and farming practices (Bandiera and Rasul
2006), whereby the right combination of information from
both local experience and expert knowledge is often needed
for innovation creation, adoption, and adaptation (Espar-
cia 2014). When looking at the relationship of agricultural
development and deforestation, it is not connectivity per se,
but the quality of relations between main governing institu-
tions that influence environmental performance (Bhattarai
and Hammig 2004). For the exchange of information, a high
reciprocity indicates trust as a basis for continuous coordi-
nation and collaboration (Hauck and Schiffer 2012). Com-
parative studies comparing different governance settings find
that higher centrality values indicate a stronger access to
information, while hierarchy and power constellations shape
information flows and the nature of interactions (Schröter
et al. 2018; Manolache et al. 2018). In agroforestry systems,
mono-directional knowledge flows from technical experts to
project managers and farmers can be a barrier to innovation
as collective exploration processes are needed to find solu-
tions responding to contexts and local perceptions (Berthet
and Hickey 2018). Furthermore, while there is ample lit-
erature on local actor networks, there is a need for a better
understanding of how embedded governance systems across
different levels and sectors can integrate the variety of func-
tions and actor groups to coherently support agroforestry.
Thus, we hypothesise that effective agroforestry governance
networks depend on high densities, connecting actors with
different interests integrating production and conservation
while at the same time comprising reciprocal exchange of
information, both between actors and political levels.
Secondly, specific governance functions are central for an
actor network to contribute to sustainable resource manage-
ment (Bodin and Crona 2009). Policy frameworks and finan-
cial support are important to provide economic incentives
for agroforestry practices (Ajayi and Place 2012; Pretty et al.
2011). At the same time, systemic constraints and adverse
incentives are key barriers to agroforestry (Ashley et al. 2006).
Bad coordination can result in a “responsibility gap” with no
actor feeling accountable for implementation (Sarkki et al.
2016). Instead, “catalytic alliances” and public–private part-
nerships can coordinate and harmonise governance processes
to a state of minimal incoherence and contradictions (Karls-
son-Vinkhuyzen et al. 2017; Holg et al. 2016). Poliycentric
governance research has shown that even networks with
maintained strong structural densities can change in their key
13
 Sustainability Science

interests (e.g., away from conservation to exploitation) or also

Coffee in altitudes, cacao, palm oil, beef,

Palm oil, paddy rice, rubber, coffee, fruit

Coffee, bananas, potatoes, maize, barley,
in internal configurations (Morrison 2017). The effectiveness

Meat, milk, cacao, coffee, grains, beans

Key agroforestry products in key area

trees such as durian, citrus, banana,

of governance systems to safeguard environmental goals are
shaped by specific modes of stakeholder coordination (Galaz
et al. 2012), the ways power is executed on different govern-
ance levels (Morrison et al. 2017), as well as the provision of
enabling institutional environments through leadership and

timber, vegetables
milk, timber, coca
commitment by governmental or non-governmental actors

Table 1  Overview on the four case study countries and the focus areas, as well as information on the latest National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)

beans, onions
(Nunan et al. 2012; Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al. 2017). Access
and exchange of information and targeted capacity building
are requirements for innovation in agroforestry practices
(Isaac et al. 2007; Pretty et al. 2011). Thus, we hypothesize
that effective governance for agroforestry systems depends on

conflicts around protected areas arising

ests into pasture land for cattle ranging

Migration and related land-use changes
the ability to (a) provide regulation that enables the uptake and

Kapchorwa (Northern Mt Elgon region), Weak law enforcement, forest resource

political interference in the affairs of

Expansion and land-conversion of for-

out of profitability of annual crops;
commercialisation of agroforestry systems, (b) offer financial

logging, land-use conversion and

West-Kalimantan (with the capital Pon- Expansion of palm oil plantation,
incentives for the implementation of agroforestry systems, and
(c) support information flows that provide new information

Key threats to biodiversity

of agroforestry systems, frame knowledge processes towards

forest management
agroforestry innovation, and incorporate this information into
learning processes.

intensification
Thirdly, specific actors play an important role in govern-
ance networks. For instance, the way powerful actors with
high levels of centrality perceive and regulate sustainable
practices has a strong impact on the overall governance
functions (Bodin and Crona 2009) and hence the support

tianak), Sanggau, Mempawah, Kapuas

for agroforestry. While environmental ministries are mostly
Mbale (Southern Mt Elgon region)

Ucayali (with the capital Pucallpa),

responsible for developing strategies for implementing
the global target on sustainable agriculture, agroforestry is
strongly influenced by other sectoral policies, such as for-
estry and agriculture. Transformation of agricultural practices
Catacamas (Olancho)
depends on bridging actors that facilitate the integration of
new knowledge into often tight local governance networks,
mainly between governmental institutions and influential Padre Abad
Focus area

farmers (Saint Ville et al. 2016; Isaac et al. 2007; Bodin and

Hulu
Crona 2019). Particularly local governments as key actors in
the governance of lands and forests have been disregarded by
political agendas and need to be both empowered (e.g., in the
Ministry for the Environment (MINAM)

National Development Planning Agency

National Environment and Management
NBSAP Responsible agency for implementation

and Forestry (MoEF) and the Indone-

(Bappenas), Ministry of Environment

implementation of property rights) and controlled by higher

Ministry for the Environment (Mi-

political levels (Larson et al. 2007), as they perform important

sian Institute of Science (LIPI)

bridging functions to local formal and informal farmer net-

works (Saint Ville et al. 2016; Sanginga et al. 2007). Our third
hypothesis therefore is that key actors, such as ministries or
Authority (NEMA)

agencies for environment, agriculture, and forestry as well as

local governments and direct land-users, have to be integrated
Ambiente)

in governance network structures.

Case studies

Our study is based on eleven focus areas in four different

2015

Honduras 2018

2014

Indonesia 2003

countries that represent a range of different agroforestry

systems and governance arrangements across three conti-
Country

Uganda

nents (Table 1). Within the countries, local areas with strong

Peru

deforestation dynamics and potential for agroforestry were

13
Sustainability Science
selected. In all countries, NBSAPs define biodiversity targets
relevant for agricultural landscapes, but have not explicitly
targeted agroforestry systems so far (Dobie et al. 2019).
Methodological process
For our participatory social network analysis, we used the
Net-Map tool. The Net-Map tool is a participatory approach
in which individual actors discuss, understand and visualise
important and complex formal and informal linkages, power
relations and the goals of each actor in the networks they
participate in (Schiffer and Hauck 2010; Hauck et al. 2016).
In conventional social network analysis approaches, data are
collected and analysed quantitatively, based on individual
responses from actors who map out their own ties to other
actors in a given network. This makes it difficult to ‘tease
out’ the underlying reasons for complex and dynamic struc-
tures (Schröter et al. 2018; Reed 2009). By contrast, Net-
Map builds on an on-site network visualisation by drawing
networks with the interviewees to facilitate the exploration
of networks and their associated meanings. While this comes
at the expense of limited participants, results are improved
by negotiating among participants which further allows for
participant learning (Schiffer and Hauck 2010; Schröter et al.
2018; Hauck et al. 2015). The process of data collection and
analysis was done in a sequential process in the period from
August 2018 to November 2019 (Fig. 1).
Step 1: Developing Net‑Map guidelines
To prepare for the data collection, local partner organisa-
tions implementing the Net-Map process in each country
(henceforth referred to as “country teams” and authors to
this paper) received methodological training to ensure com-
parable data collection processes. Subsequently, Net-Map
guidelines were developed jointly to define a maximum of
commonalities in the questions across the case studies and
still adapt them to national and local contexts. The overall
Fig. 1  Methodological approach and process of the Net-Map workshops
guiding questions were developed as well as a common ter-
minology defining terms such as “agroforestry”, “trees”,
“farms”, as well as flow eligible as e.g. “finance flows”, tak-
ing into account variations among countries and languages.
Step 2: Sampling of participants
In each of the four countries we intended to host Net-Map
workshops at all political levels relevant for the governance
of agroforestry systems. It was not possible to host national
Net-Map workshops in Indonesia and Uganda due to organi-
sational and financial constraints linked to the political cul-
ture of the countries. In Uganda and Honduras, we decided
not to host sessions at sub-national levels as these levels do
not have a specific mandate for agroforestry governance.
Country teams were asked to invite six to twelve participants
as experts, representing the following actor groups relevant
for agroforestry governance: governmental entities, farmers’
organisations, and representatives from the private sector,
NGOs, academia, and finance actors, who have been work-
ing in the context of agroforestry systems (Fig. 2).
Step 3: Hosting workshops
Net-Map workshops lasted three to four hours and included
the following themes: (a) eliciting influential actors and their
characteristics, (b) identifying relations such as information
flows, financial flows, and regulatory flows between actors
by drawing links between the actors, (c) asking for the over-
all level of influence of actors on agroforestry (weighed in
so-called “influence-towers”). Additionally, participants
provided qualitative explanations for the selected actors
and the types of relations that connect them. As a last step
of the workshop, participants were asked to each reflect on
the activity and to identify their key observation. After the
Net-Map sessions, mappings of actors were translated into
excel tables that cover the following information: 1. List
of identified key actors, with a description of their relation
13

to agroforestry and influence tower values, 2. Quantitative
(with 1 = link and 0 = no link) and qualitative information on
flows of information, regulation, and finance.
Step 4: Analysis
We first performed quantitative analyses to screen the data
and identify key actors and flows that were subsequently
explored using qualitative content analysis. The quantitative
analysis for the overall network characteristics and the flows
of regulation, finance and information was done according
to the following characteristics: (a) Number of links per net-
work, (b) Density of the network, i.e. the number of actual
links divided by the possible links (number of actors minus
one), and (c). Reciprocity, expressed as the ratio of mutual
links among the actors in a network as a measure of mutual
trust and an indication of social capital.
With regard to the actor groups we calculated the follow-
ing values: (a) Influence of each mapped actor as assessed
by participants in influence towers (standardised into val-
ues from 0 to 1); (b) Degree of centrality, referring to the
number of links that an actor has, either from this actor to
other actors (out degree) or from other actors to this actor
(in degree). Summation of the two (in and out degree) gives
the total degree for an actor. With reference to hypothesis 1
we assumed that an actor with a higher centrality than other
actors has dominant position in the governance network (c)
Betweenness centrality as a measure of how a particular
actor connects two or more other actors that are otherwise
not connected to each other. According to hypothesis 2 we
assumed that an actor with a high value for betweenness
Fig. 2  Distribution of workshop participants across predetermined actor groups
13
Sustainability Science
centrality has a specific bridging function and can either be
a gate keeper or a facilitator of a governance function.
Quantitative social network measures were computed
using R Statistical Software packages (igraph, influenceR).
This included the calculation of graph level measures: den-
sity, edge and vertex counts, reciprocity, graph diameter, and
E-I index. Using centrality measures, key actors were iden-
tified as actors with the highest total degree, betweenness,
and bridging scores. Descriptive statistics were used to sum-
marise actor level centrality measures for each graph. We
used Quadratic Assessment Procedure (QAP) to compare
the similarity between finance and regulation flows (Butts
2010). The similarity of hypothetical graphs for regulation
and finance graphs was simulated for each of the political
levels while controlling for network/graph structure. While
all of these quantitative values indicate the potential of an
actor, the specific role and agency in a network was revealed
by qualitative analysis.
For our qualitative analysis we selected the three actors
with the highest value for each influence, degree of central-
ity and betweenness centrality for each case study, while
assuring a representation of at least one actor of each of
the predefined actor categories (Fig. 1). We then prepared
country reports to extract possible explanations for the num-
bers explaining the role of actors and network ties based
on the network transcripts. More concretely, country teams
were asked to describe the role particular actors played and
look at e.g.: what type of information do they distribute and/
or collect? What type of finance do they distribute and/or
collect? What type of regulation do they implement? The
responses from the country team reports were compared, and
joint patterns across political levels, countries and individual
Sustainability Science
workshops were extracted and contrasted with the quantita-
tive results.
Results
General structural network characteristics
The actor networks across the case studies showed a high
density, particularly regarding the exchange of information
(Tables 2 and 3, Supplementary Material 1 Figure SM1-1).
Information networks were relatively homogenous without
encapsulated sub-networks. In comparison density of the
networks was even higher on the local level than on the
national and sub-national levels. An exception was the local
case of Peru (Padre Abad), where existing initiatives and
actors were reported to work largely independently. Despite
the generally high levels of reciprocity indicating bilateral
interaction, qualitative explanations indicated that many ties
consisted of simple information exchange without indicating
stronger levels of collaboration. We could not detect general
trends among countries or at different levels.
In finance and regulations, there were overall fewer links
reported and consequently there was a lower network den-
sity. Links were also less reciprocal, as money and regula-
tion usually flow unidirectional, e.g., from one donor to one
recipient. An exception to this rule could be found in the
Net-Map in Kapchorwa (Uganda). Here, governmental and
financial actors exchanged finance flows as they were jointly
managing farmer support. In general, we found the following
finance flows in all case studies indicating the availability
of funding for agricultural activities related to agroforestry.
Governmental agents supported local farmers with inputs.
In cases of higher reciprocities (e.g., Catacamas, Honduras)
farmers also paid governmental agents e.g., for user per-
mits. Comparing finance and regulation flows we observed
similar patterns across the case studies at both local and
national/provincial levels supported by QAP values (see
Table 2, Fig. 3). Levels of similarity were higher within the
local levels for all the case studies. With the exception of
the national level in Honduras, significant levels of similar-
ity between financial and regulation flows were noted in all
the case studies. An important observation of the qualitative
interpretation of regulatory links was that most interactions
were relevant for tree governance, but not directly targeted
at supporting agroforestry.
Principal flows between actor groups
The following section presents these patterns for flows of
finance, regulation and information relevant for agroforestry
governance and illustrates them with specificities from the
different case studies.
Finance – repeating themes and barriers
Funding for governmental organisations and projects
was administered by central Finance Ministries in all coun-
tries, including both governmental budgets and funds from
development cooperation and biodiversity and climate initia-
tives. Accounting methodologies considering the costs and
benefits of ecosystem services including those provided by
agroforestry were being developed (e.g., by Finance Min-
istries in Peru and Indonesia), but their level of application
was uncertain.
Credit schemes for farming processes were offered by
rural banks or credit institutions in all countries enabling
farmers to develop a business. Long-time investment periods
and difficult liability conditions of remotely living farmers
were central barriers for applications in agroforestry. In the
case of Honduran coffee production, the producers associa-
tion IHCafé secured liability of their associates and thereby
facilitated the access to credits.
Public and private support and finance for farmers
existed and covered specific costs for agricultural inputs,
such as fertilizers or even plant seedlings. Special gov-
ernmental funds were supporting agricultural projects or
capacity building for example for young farmers or tree
crops (in Uganda), in buffer zones of protected areas,
farmers in general (Indonesia) or to non-coca agriculture
in a drug-eradication programme (in Peru). While all of
these support systems were important for farmers, they did
not specifically incentivise agroforestry systems.
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) were related
to agroforestry, but only applied in very limited scopes.
For instance, a PES scheme funded by the Global Envi-
ronmental Facility (GEF) in Uganda incentivised farmers
to reduce deforestation to conserve chimpanzee forests.
In Peru, the Ministry for Environment supported native
communities with 10 Soles per hectare (~ 3 US$) for sus-
tainable management of their communal forests.
Market premium payments for products with manage-
ment requirements or certification provided incentives for
agroforestry. An example was Chocolates Halba in Hon-
duras, who required their Cacao to be complemented by
Carbon offsets through tree management. Other examples
were sustainability certification standards compensated
with extra payments, for instance managed by Rainforest
Alliance in Peru. As the other companies however did not
request any sustainability requirements, companies were
not assessed as very important with regard to agroforestry
decisions.
In addition to funding opportunities, costs for tree man-
agement posed specific barriers to agroforestry systems in
all countries. Costs for tree nurseries and seedlings added
to ordinary farming costs related to crop seeds, fertilizers,
13
 Sustainability Science

working time and pest management. While seedlings were

The Quadratic Assessment Procedure (QAP) test qualifies the similarity between regulation and finance patterns, ranging from no similarity (no star) to very significant similarities (three ***)
QAP test between
supplied by private organisations or initiatives, costs were

regulation and
supported by governments, NGOs, or development organi-
sations. In Indonesia the government supported local liveli-

0.36***

0.70***
0.69***
0.42***
0.68***
0.33***
0.63***
0.19***

0.66***
finance

0.11**
hoods by providing tree nurseries in villages in Kalimantan.

0.04
Costs for membership in associations are mostly necessary
to remain competitive and have market access.
Costs for commercialising timber were related to reg-
reciprocity tion reci-
Regulation Informa-

procity

istering the trees and titling property as a prerequisite for

0.67
0.80
0.82
0.77
0.90
0.72
0.68
0.76
0.74
0.70
0.52
commercialising the timber. Despite governmental support,
farmers in Honduras and Peru faced costs for necessary
technical assessments. Peruvian farmers could obtain agro-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.15
0.06
0.00
0.32
0.22
0.00
0.18
forestry concessions for producing on state owned land. Dif-
ficulties remained with financing those leases. It was usually
Financial

local governments and forestry agencies collecting payments

reciproc-

for user permits and forestry related concessions.

0.09
0.19
0.00
0.22
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.04
0.39
0.12
ity

Regulation – repeating themes

Regulation relevant for agroforestry schemes existed in
density
mation

all countries with some variations among the case studies

Infor-

0.35
0.03
0.16
0.18
0.27
0.27
0.46
0.22
0.27
0.22
0.29

with link densities from 0,05 to 0,22 without a specific rec-

ognisable pattern. As visible in Fig. 3 and Table 2, regula-
tion and finance links followed similar patterns, indicating
that many regulations such as permits or concessions were
Finance density Regulation

conditioned on payments, or that for instance buyers of prod-

density

ucts had regulatory power by demanding product or process

0.08
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.12
0.12
0.22
0.13
0.16
0.05
0.14

standards.
Land-titling and land-use rights were a prerequisite
to legally accessing forest and timber resources and were
Table 2  Overview of the 11 case studies, average number of actors, their links, and reciprocity

a strong challenge for agroforestry in all countries. In

0.09
0.04
0.07
0.08
0.13
0.03
0.17
0.09

0.08

Peru, land titles could be received when an agricultural

0.1
0.1

use was demonstrated to the responsible regional Agri-

Total num-

cultural Agency. Likewise in the other countries, land

ber of all

titles were either administered by agricultural agencies,

links

259
130
151
329
338
232
231
345
370
154
237

or in case of Indonesia by the Land Agency. By contrast,

regulations related to forestry and forest  concessions
were treated as a separate policy field in all countries.
actors in the
Number of

In Peru, agroforestry concessions enabled production on

network

state owned land while requiring conservation activities.

Environmental Impact Assessments on large agricultural
27
27
23
33
26
24
17
25
23
21
21

projects required approval by the Ministry for the Environ-

West-Kalimantan

ment in both Peru and Uganda. In Honduras and Uganda,

Kapuas Hulu
Tegucigalpa
Padre Abad

Mempawah

regulation was designed to protect slopes and watersheds

Kapchorwa
Catacamas
Pucallpa

Sanggau

from agricultural expansion and deforestation. In Indo-

Mbale
Lima

nesia, social forestry policies incentivise the transforma-

Site

tion of monoculture plantations such as coffee into mixed

S = Sub- national,

plantations. All those policies however presented strong

Level: L = local,

shortcomings in implementation and enforcement. E.g.,

N = national

in Honduras private property and production of inter alia

coffee and beans could be found inside protected areas,
and on slopes. In Uganda, tenure regulation was unclear.
N

N
L

L
L
L
L
L
S

Registration of trees for commercial use was required

Honduras
Honduras
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Country

Uganda
Uganda

to assure that only planted trees and no wild trees were cut
Peru
Peru
Peru

for formal timber production. This required documented

13
Sustainability Science

Table 3  Characterisation of all actor types aggregated, ranked according to their degree centrality and assessed across the 11 Net-Map cases (4
case studies were conducted on national and sub-national levels, 7 on local levels)
Actor category Local Associations Farmers National/ Academia Development org. NGO Private business Illegal actors
govern- subnational and finance actors
ment goverment

# of actors in all 34 18 21 63 15 24 24 36 5
11 cases
# of actor category 9 6 9 11 8 10 10 9 3
in all 11 cases
# of actors (out of
4) mentioned
on national and 2 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 1
sub-national
levels
# of actors (out of 7 3 7 7 4 6 7 6 2
7) in category
mentioned on
the local level
Influence across 0.46 0.39 0.58 0.34 0.39 0.45 0.42 0.23 0.25
all 11 cases
Influence across 0.62 0.71 0.74 0.54 0.54 0.52 0.48 0.28 0.92
all cases, where
category was
mentioned
Influence (only 0.56 0.82 0.76 0.53 0.59 0.73 0.65 0.47 0.89
national cases)
Influence (only 0.56 0.50 0.68 0.53 0.49 0.29 0.37 0.20 1.00
local cases)
Degree of central- 0.46 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.08
ity
Betweenness 0.25 0.30 0.31 0.25 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.10
centrality

The rows marked in italics are further specified into level and country values in supplementary material 2

property over the land, where the trees were registered.
The local focus group in Honduras indicated problems
with the knowledge of farmers about these processes,
transaction costs (compiling the information, learning how
the process works) and a weak complementarity of the
governmental actors involved in this process.
Process and product standards were defined and
supervised by Agricultural Ministries. They were (still)
primarily focused towards quality and sanitary standards
(e.g., for milk or meat processing).
Technological permits were usually handled by local
authorities. In Honduras for instance, the local environ-
mental agencies gave out permits for using chain-saws.
Regulatory functions of non-state actors were con-
sidered as having a strong impact on agroforestry manage-
ment. The conditions of credit schemes or standards in
value chains were seen to have a strong regulatory function
on farmers’ practices.
Information – repeating themes and barriers
The coordination between governance actors were
the motivation for some of the information flows in all
countries. Environmental ministries informed other min-
istries on their policies and collected and disseminated
information on their topics. For example, forestry agen-
cies collected and provided information on trees, forest
concessions, and restoration projects. Although reciproc-
ity between actors was generally high, participants indi-
cated that this did not imply that actors coordinated their
activities.
Capacity building on agricultural practices existed
in all case studies and was related to projects or specific
instruments. Usually the ministries and agencies for agri-
culture or forestry provided extension services and trained
farmers in tree and forestry regulation. In the cases of
Peru and Indonesia, this function was taken over by sub-
national or local agencies. In the studied cases, integrat-
ing trees and biodiversity with agricultural practices was
not part of this capacity building. Additionally, private
businesses informed local stakeholders on market require-
ments and trained them in certification and best practice
requirements. For some projects, academic actors of NGOs

13

Fig. 3  Governance networks in all case studies with aggregated links for regulation and financial flows
facilitated this coordination and disseminated of knowl-
edge related to agroforestry management.
Identification and characterisation of key actors
for agroforestry governance
Based on the influence tower ratings and the number of links
between actors we assessed the actor groups and ranked
them according to their degree of centrality (see Table 3
and Supplementary Material 2 for detailed results). The fol-
lowing paragraphs present each actor group and explain its
governance function.
13
Sustainability Science
Local governments were mentioned less often (particu-
larly in national and sub-national Net-Maps), but rated as
very influential when they appear. Both the high degree of
centrality and betweenness indicated their role as a facilita-
tor in local networks. A high value for betweenness central-
ity for local governments in national and sub-national Net-
Maps (0.35) identified local governments as important link
to local networks, while their low level for degree of central-
ity indicated their lower integration into national and sub-
national governance settings. While the national government
designed policies and guidelines, sub-national and district
governments directly assisted communities formalising tree
Sustainability Science
planting permits and administering policies. In Indonesia,
tree planting was promoted through social forestry schemes.
In Indonesia, Uganda and Honduras, the local governments
and municipalities directly implemented property rights, for-
estry permits and licences for cutting trees to farmers and
carpenters. In Peru, municipalities implemented specific
public investment projects related to agricultural production.
Farmer associations represented farmers and executed
important governance functions in the two Latin Ameri-
can countries. This influence was particularly important
on local levels, where they assumed functions of gather-
ing the products for national or international sales, reflected
by higher values for degree and particularly in betweenness
(0.45 compared to 0.22 nationally). Their influence varied as
some product chains (e.g., coffee, cacao, and palm oil chains
were organised more strongly) whereas others (particularly
cattle raising and timber production) were rather executed
individually.
Farmers and farming groups were considered as the most
important actor group as they decide about tree management
on their land and along riparian reserves ensuring connec-
tivity. This was confirmed by highest value for influence
and betweenness and a strong degree. A high degree on the
local level (0.40 compared to 0.31 nationally) and a stronger
local betweenness (0.34 compared to 0.22 nationally) high-
lighted a stronger integration into networks than on national
and sub-national levels. Perceived accountability of farm-
ers was therefore regarded as central for successful policy
implementation. In consequence, finance flows as well as
information and regulation ties densely connect farmers with
most governance actors.
National and Sub-national governments had a uniform
high level of influence across countries and political levels,
confirmed by high degree and betweenness values. Their
specific function depended on the respective sector.
Ministries for Agriculture defined process standards for
agricultural production and regulated the land titling process
with potentially strong effects for agricultural management,
endorsing mostly agricultural expansions and intensifica-
tion of monocultures (e.g., palm oil production in Indonesia,
Peru and Honduras and sugarcane growing in Uganda). The
Ministries for Agriculture informed on agricultural markets
and trained lower governmental agencies and farmers, and
approved major agricultural projects.
National forestry agencies (or corresponding Minis-
tries) regulated forest land (e.g.: against encroachment) and
implemented forest related policies, such as use concessions
and forestry management plans. They also collected fees
for concessions and permits for forest extraction. Forestry
agencies planned, implemented, and monitored reforestation
processes in all countries. They either financed seedlings
production and distribution (e.g., Uganda) or directly pro-
vided them (e.g., Indonesia). In Indonesia, the ministry had a
full control over forestlands and could allocate lands for non-
forestry purposes (including agriculture), social forestry, or
other interventions.
Ministries for Environment implemented environmental
policies and projects, and coordinated with other political
actors. They were the main implementers of international
money channelled through global environmental agreements
(e.g., Convention on Biodiversity and Framework Conven-
tion on Climate Change). National determined contribution
and climate bound development cooperation instruments
pushed reforestation and conservation onto sector agendas
and thereby highlighted interdependencies of climate and
biodiversity policies. In Peru and Uganda, Environmental
Ministries approved Environmental Impact Assessments on
large agricultural projects. On the local levels, Ministries
for Environment were only scarcely visible through specific
conservation projects or policies, such as the “Building
Resilient Communities, Wetland Ecosystems and Associ-
ated Catchments” in the Uganda Project.
Ministries for Finance were not directly present on
regional or local levels, but they still had an important func-
tion by steering finance flows. They financed governmental
institutions, but also decided on conditions for the approval
of governmental projects and international official devel-
opment assistance (ODA). In Uganda, a special fund was
designed by the Ministry for Finance and managed by the
Bank of Uganda to provide agricultural financing to farmers
and youth through commercial banks at a subsidised rate.
National park agencies engaged with farmers and com-
munities around protected areas and provided financial sup-
port and information on reforestation in buffer zones. For
instance in Uganda under the wildlife law, the park agency
was expected to remit 20% of the gate collections from tour-
ism to the neighbouring communities for “environmental
and restoration related” projects. In Kalimantan (Indonesia),
provincial environmental agencies engaged local population
in tree planting and conservation programmes.
In Peru and Indonesia, functions of the ministries for
agriculture and forestry were implemented by their coun-
terparts on the regional level. In Peru, forestry agencies
responded to the Ministry of Agriculture, while in Uganda
and Indonesia they were independent sectors. In all coun-
tries, forestry and agriculture were however treated as inde-
pendent policy fields, leaving agroforestry systems in a grey
zone in between.
Academic actors mainly provided knowledge on farm
practices, but also disseminated knowledge to political
actors, train farmers and delivered tree seedlings. Further-
more, academic institutions facilitated contacts between gov-
ernmental initiatives and farmer groups and planned and
implemented projects, including on agroforestry.
Development organisations and financing actors were
attributed a strong potential for supporting agroforestry.
13

Their attested influence on the national levels (0.73) strongly
superseded the value perceived on local levels (0.33) As
one sub-group of this category, international cooperation,
such as USAID, GIZ, UNEP etc. usually implemented their
funds through direct national partner organisations, such as
the Ministry for Environment, Ministries, other state agen-
cies or NGOs. Other finance actors, such as banks or credit
institutes rather focused on businesses, associations or single
farmers. These actors appeared in almost all Net-Maps and
especially at the national level, they were regarded as influ-
ential. Their comparatively low centrality, i.e. low degree
and betweenness could be explained by them targeting, few
primary partners.
NGOs played a critical role in catalysing tree planting
and biodiversity conservation programmes, and in empow-
ering farmer groups, particularly recognised on the national
level (influence value of 0.65). Non-state actors proactively
filled the gaps and implemented the state’s roles and func-
tions, shifting the types of function that were once the sole
domain of the state.
Private businesses showed intermediate values for influ-
ence towers average degree and betweenness. Similar to
developing organisation and finance actors, their influence
was weighed much stronger on the National and sub-national
level (0.47 compared to 0.21 locally). Participants in Net-
Map sessions highlighted the potential of those actors to
exceed tree management standards, when buying agricul-
tural products. Carpenters and timber processing agents had
specific roles in the commercialisation of timber. In Peru
the informal market also included charcoal producers and
carpenters. They bought timber from individual farmers and
timber processing agents, and they also bought and sold tim-
ber between them.
Illegal actors were scarcely identified, but showed a very
high influence when they appeared. Low degrees of con-
nectivity and betweenness resulted from links being difficult
to track. Furthermore, participants felt uncomfortable talk-
ing about this topic. Illegal production (e.g., coca in Peru)
competed with other types of production and light transport
weight, and high prices facilitated both logistics and profit-
ability. At the same time, anti-drug campaigns in Peru were
a major source of support for other agriculture replacing
drug production.
Discussion
Shedding light on governance structures in four countries,
our results revealed clear entry points for a better support
for agroforestry in tropical countries as a means to imple-
ment Aichi target 7. Independent of the professional back-
ground, all Net-Map participants could relate to agrofor-
estry, revealing its potential as a boundary object. While
13
Sustainability Science
our social network analysis does not claim to identify and
assess all governance processes relevant for agroforestry,
clear tendencies and similarities were identified across the
four countries.
Structural characteristics of actor networks
The analysis of the main structural characteristics identified
strong established networks with a high degree of connect-
edness for information, but also for regulation and finance
flows. The absence of general network patterns among
countries and levels affirmed the need for adjusting policy
and finance solutions individually to given institutional set-
tings (McAllister et al. 2015). Nevertheless, the qualitative
results indicated that finance, regulatory, and information
flows were not complementary, but more fragmented than
the quantitative results suggest, which limits the applicabil-
ity of our first hypothesis. The local levels generally showed
a stronger density than higher levels. Despite the strong
densities, a responsibility gap between sectors and political
levels leaves agroforestry in a grey zone of governmental
regulation, with no clear assigned accountabilities (Sarkki
et al. 2016). Countries assign forestry to one, agriculture to
another ministry, with agroforestry being in an undefined
territory in between. For example, in Indonesia, tree regula-
tion by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry is focused
on state land. Being responsible for the regulation of private
and agriculture lands, the Ministry for Agriculture and local
governments tend to steer land use to seasonal crops without
trees. In all case studies, agricultural ministries (and their
provincial counterparts) had a strong influence on regula-
tion and on extension services building local capacities on
best practices for farm management, while ministries for
environment as responsible agents for NBSAP implementa-
tion were disconnected from such implementing institutions.
Comparing national and sub-national with local actor net-
works (see Table 3 and Fig. 3) revealed very different actor
configurations. Thus, the fragmentation of governance pro-
cesses (vertically and horizontally) for agroforestry were a
strong barrier for mainstreaming biodiversity into productive
sectors (Nunan et al. 2012). Key elements for governance
structures supportive of agroforestry are: a targeted collabo-
rative setting taking into account the broader institutional
setting (Pavoola et al. 2009); a clear discursive and institu-
tional framing and streamlining of agroforestry as compo-
nent of “good farming” (Berthet and Hickey 2018; Ashley
et al. 2006); and external bridging ties for introducing new
technologies (Isaac and Matous 2017). Moreover, a stronger
formalisation of the agroforestry support network might be
an option to manage vulnerability of organisational ten-
sions and unreliable external influences (Galaz et al. 2012).
The strong variation of governance networks perceived by
national/sub-national and local participants (visible in Fig. 1
Sustainability Science
and Appendices 1 and 2) point to a potential for strengthen-
ing vertical ties between political levels.
Specific governance functions revealed by network
ties
Key flows of finance, regulation, and information existed
in all case studies and revealed a strong potential for agro-
forestry support. Finance flows existed even in the poor-
est countries, providing incentives to farmers for certain
agricultural practices and thereby also executing regulatory
functions. This resulted in a strong interdependence of regu-
lation and finance flows (Fig. 3, the exception of the national
level in Honduras can be explained with limited time to
map all ties between a large number of actors). Our second
hypothesis was however undermined, as incentive systems
do not yet support agroforestry as part of general agricul-
ture. Specific support schemes for agroforestry are scarce
and have a limited scope in terms of geographical area (e.g.,
payment for ecosystem schemes in Uganda in biodiversity
hotspots; agroforestry concessions on state forest in Peru)
and target groups (e.g., social forestry in Indonesia in state
owned forests and communal cooperatives, leaving private
agricultural land outside of its scope). Hence, while political
mandates for restoration (for carbon sequestration as indi-
cated in nationally determined contributions) and biodiver-
sity conservation (as indicated by NBSAPs) exist, policy
integration is undermined by a missing operationalisation
into local implementation processes (Persson and Runhaar
2018, Zinngrebe 2018). By contrast, general agriculture was
supported in all countries by bank loans, product certifi-
cation, and support schemes for agricultural development
funded by governments, NGOs, or development coopera-
tion (e.g., through anti-drug campaigns in Latin America).
Instead of providing preferential conditions for agroforestry
activities, however, long-term periods of tree cultivation,
missing follow-up financing for tree management, and dif-
ficult liability conditions for small farmers deter investments
in agroforestry. While different forms of commercialisation
of timber and other tree products provide a central incentive
for agroforestry (Sears et al. 2018), costs for certification,
tree planting, and conservation or tree registration can deter
farmers’ engagement in agroforestry practices. Especially
difficulties in registering trees for commercialisation and
problems with land titling pose important barriers to agro-
forestry and favour other forms of agricultural production
(Bennett et al. 2018). In this regard it is apparent that the
influence of finance actors and private business are per-
ceived as much more important on national than on the local
level. It is the interplay of financing opportunities, regula-
tory obstacles, social infrastructure, and available informa-
tion and knowledge that determines the economic viabil-
ity of sustainable agriculture (Pretty et al. 2011). In this
perspective, agroforestry systems have to compete with other
agricultural systems, including illegal and informal activi-
ties, leading to profitability concerns (Valdivia et al. 2012)
while favouring other types of agricultural production (Wil-
son and Lovell 2016). Sustainable value chains or companies
that exceed the provision of carbon credits or certification
can be an important opportunity. With the prospect of new
finance opportunities from sustainable value chains or inter-
national finance instruments, such as REDD + (Catacutan
et al. 2012), possible incentives for agroforestry will depend
on the coordination of climate and biodiversity policies, as
well as the integration of institutional settings converting
those finance flows within existing governance structures
while reducing administrative hurdles. Giving agroforestry
an “institutional home”, providing enabling conditions (van
Noordwijk et al. 2019) can only be provided by an integrated
governance and the enabling social capital among different
governance agents.
Specific actors and agency in agroforestry
governance
As key actors for agroforestry governance, farmers play a
central role, as they eventually decide on whether to inte-
grate trees into their agricultural land or not. Despite the
strong influence attested to farmers and farmer associa-
tions on all levels, their strong values for degree centrality
and particularly betweenness centrality points to impor-
tant network functions (e.g. potentially as facilitators or as
gate keepers of projects) that have to be taken into account
throughout implementation processes. Particularly the two
Latin American cases showed that associations can be
important facilitators in this process. Local governments
were regarded as particularly important in coordinating local
networks and facilitating knowledge inputs from the outside,
as shown by various other studies (Isaac et al. 2007, Larson
et al. 2007). It is striking that farmers and local governments
did not appear some of the national Net-Maps. In contrast to
the strong presence of governmental actors for instance in
Indonesia, we observed that NGOs, academia, and private
businesses take over many governance functions. Groups of
carpenters or local sawmills are hubs for the commercialisa-
tion of timber. Therefore, pilot projects with those actors on
the commercialisation of timber could have strong impacts
on farmers’ willingness to invest in trees. In this regard it
is apparent that the influence of finance actors and private
business are perceived as much more important on national
than on the local level. In general, local governance struc-
tures are key to implementation and – as visible by the low
representation on national and sub-national Net-Maps – off
the radar of many national policy processes. While key agen-
cies, governments and farmers are included in governance
networks following our third hypothesis, it is particularly
13

the constellation, cooperation and political mandate of key
actors that undermine a coherent incentive system as also
found by the debates on biodiversity, environmental, or
climate policy integration (e.g., Adelle and Russel 2013;
DiGregorio et al. 2017).
It was apparent in all case studies that the environmental
and responsible agencies for implementing national biodi-
versity targets are disconnected from implementation pro-
cesses in farm management. Instead of building new mech-
anisms and institutions for environmental governance, a
strategy of facilitating the integration of existing institutions
in related sectors (e.g., forestry and agriculture) and local
governance structures seems most promising. Knowledge
and awareness of existing governance structures can serve
as a key input to learning processes, adapting the network
structure and functions to the needs of solving sustainability
challenges, such transforming agricultural landscapes (Lang
et al. 2012; Zinngrebe 2018). Our results indicate that cur-
rently the exchange between different governance actors is
mostly restricted to informing (and potentially consulting)
other agents about the own processes. Networks and plat-
forms, such as the forestry commission COCONAFOR in
Honduras, the business platforms EADEN in Uganda, or
watershed forum in Indonesia could be used to better coor-
dinate governance structures to support agroforestry pro-
cesses. Experiences have shown how the engagement of
governance actors in specific projects can lead to general
institutional reconfigurations (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al.
2017). Currently, development and finance organisations
(including anti-drug programmes) mostly interact with
one partner organisation, which bears the risk of produc-
ing isolated activities or projects without an impact beyond
the project period. Instead, our findings support the call for
multi-sector, multi-level collaboration for the implementa-
tion of the landscape approach (Axelsson et al. 2011). While
land-use conflicts will emerge, the way those conflicts are
managed will determine whether they can be converted into
sustainable change (Sanginga et al. 2007), and thus induce
learning processes towards a stronger support for agrofor-
estry innovation in agricultural landscapes.
Limitations and outlook
The Net-Map tool is known for its benefits in co-producing
knowledge, useful for both the scientists and practition-
ers involved (e.g., Hauck et al. 2016; Lelong et al. 2016).
Consistently, participants of the Net-Map sessions strongly
engaged and gave rather positive verbal feedback after the
session. The tool showed potential to support the negotia-
tions between different stakeholder groups and jointly take
decisions and identify leverage points for. governance.
Despite the good atmosphere and interesting insights,
participants felt that the sessions were time consuming, and
13
Sustainability Science
some felt fatigue after the sessions. This implies a risk that
not all actors and interactions are captured in the net-map
charts. A possible solution would be to conduct the weight-
ing first and only continue the exercise with the 15–20 most
important actors. This approach, however, would reduce the
reflexive process, in which participants become aware of
actor functions they did not relate to agroforestry govern-
ance in the first place. While aiming at a representation of
all relevant stakeholder groups, we had to work with those
stakeholders attending our workshops. In many of the cases
the representation of governmental participants was strong,
probably creating a bias towards the role and influence of
governmental actors with respect to agroforestry.
With a limited number of focus groups and represented
stakeholders, our approach cannot map all important gov-
ernance processes as it is restricted to the perspective and
experience of participants. However, similarities among the
case studies and the negotiation among actors with different
backgrounds during the focus group sessions enabled us to
identify and characterise some key opportunities and bar-
riers in agroforestry governance. Future research is needed
to have a closer look at individual processes while still con-
sidering interdependencies among actor structures and their
complementary governance functions. As the true comple-
mentarity and cooperation between governance processes
appears to be a key limitation in agroforestry governance,
more research is needed on enabling conditions for coopera-
tion and the potentials of actor platforms and networks to
induce and support synergies.
Conclusions
Our comparison of four tropical countries finds governance
structures with strong relevance, but little support for agro-
forestry systems. Most existing incentives support agricul-
tural practices that do not consider trees and biodiversity,
and may even promote land-use change and deforestation
of primary forests. Only few direct policy instruments and
projects promote isolated biodiversity initiatives. In order
to reduce harmful incentive systems (Aichi target 3) and
to transform agricultural dynamics into sustainable condi-
tions (Aichi target 7), existing incentive systems need to be
changed. Our results point to three central entry insights
to foster a transformative governance of agricultural
landscapes.
Firstly, social and governmental perceptions of “good
farming” need to include agroforestry to increase accept-
ance and accountability for sustainable farming. Even cat-
tle ranchers in Honduras used to “clean” pastures and open
lands are interested in the regulating ecosystem services of
trees in the face of climate change and droughts. However,
knowledge on context specific best practice options is scarce.
Sustainability Science
Universities, research centres and NGOs, but also agricul-
tural and forestry extension services can provide capacity
building and demonstrate the ecosystem services provided
by agroforestry, such as shade, wind breaks, fruit provision
and (commercial) timber.
Secondly, implementation of agroforestry-specific
instruments requires complementary structures providing
regulation, finance, and information. Private initiatives
(including carbon credits) and value chains, as well as
local credit schemes support agriculture, but put signifi-
cant hurdles to the application on agroforestry. Long-term
tree investments are undermined by short time frames of
credit schemes and difficult access conditions for remote
farmers. Existing technological knowledge, related finance
options as well as supporting regulatory frameworks need
to be connected to political discourses in farming and to
be linked to local governance structures to unleash the
potential of agroforestry.
Thirdly, the different functions of actor groups need to be
coordinated in facilitated learning processes. Farmer deci-
sions are not only influenced by extension services, but also
have to comply with requirements set by markets and credit
institutes. The environmental sector responsible for imple-
menting biodiversity targets and conserving habitat struc-
tures is badly disconnected from local structures. Existing
platforms and cooperation schemes should be used to coor-
dinate governmental and non-governmental efforts for joint
implementation processes and institutional learning with a
clear vision and mandate for agroforestry. Particularly bridg-
ing actors such as farmer associations and local governments
play an important role in facilitating such processes.
Instead of supporting single selected executing partners
in projects that target individual sustainability challenges, a
closer focus on processes integrating the support for agrofor-
estry across all relevant governance processes is necessary to
foster adaptive learning of governance structures in order to
achieve both biodiversity and climate targets. Looking at
the dispersed and disconnected landscapes of projects and
financial support we call for both public and private actors
to continuously support these learning processes to both
improve outcomes and use available funds more efficiently.
Acknowledgements  Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
We like to thank all Net-Map participants as well as the support of
our partners in the four countries for their contributions to this study.
This research received funding from the International Climate Initiative
(IKI) (Grant number: BMUZ_1273). We like to thank the two review-
ers for their very constructive comments.
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Adelle C, Russel D (2013) Climate policy integration: a case of déjà
vu? Environm Policy Govern 23(1):1–12. https:​ //doi.org/10.1002/
eet.1601
Ajayi OC, Place F (2012) Policy support for large-scale adoption of
agroforestry practices: experience from Africa and Asia. In: Nair
PR, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry-the future of global land use.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp 175–201
Ashley R, Russell D, Swallow B (2006) The policy terrain in protected
area landscapes: challenges for agroforestry in integrated land-
scape conservation. Biodivers Conserv 15(2):663–689. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1053​1-005-2100-x
Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Stryamets N, Johansson KE
(2011) Sustainable development and sustainability: Landscape
approach as a practical interpretation of principles and imple-
mentation concepts. J Landscape Ecol 4(3):5–30: https​://doi.
org/10.2478/v1028​5-012-0040-1
Bandiera O, Rasul I (2006) Social networks and technology adoption
in northern Mozambique. Econom J 116:869–902. https​://doi.org
/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01115​.x
Barrios E, Sileshi GW, Shepherd K, Sinclair F (2012) Agroforestry
and soil health: linking trees, soil biota, and ecosystem services.
In: Wall D, Bardgett R, Behan-Pelletier V, Herrick J, Jones TH
et al (eds) Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services, vol 14. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp 315–330
Bennett A, Ravikumar A, Cronkleton P (2018) The effects of rural
development policy on land rights distribution and land use
scenarios: the case of oil palm in the Peruvian Amazon. Land
Use Policy 70:84–93. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.landu ​ s epol​
.2017.10.011
Berthet ET, Hickey GM (2018) Organizing collective innovation
in support of sustainable agro-ecosystems: the role of network
management. Agric Syst 165:44–54. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2018.05.016
Bhattarai M, Hammig M (2004) Governance, economic policy, and the
environmental Kuznets curve for natural tropical forests. Environ
Dev Econ 9(3):367–382. https​://doi.org/10.1017/S1355​770X0​
30012​93
Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural
resource governance: what relational patterns make a differ-
ence? Global Environm Change 19(3):366–374. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloen​vcha.2009.05.002
13

Bourne M, Gassner A, Makui P, Muller A, Muriuki JA (2017) Net-
work perspective filling a gap in assessment of agricultural advi-
sory system performance. J Rural Stud 1(50):30–44. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrurs​tud.2016.12.008
Butts CT (2010) Tools for social network analysis, R package version,
2010, 2. https​://CRAN.R-proje​ct.org/packa​ge=sna
CBD (1992) The Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations
Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. https​://www.cbd.int/conve​
ntion​/text/
CBD (2010) Decision X/2_Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.
In: Conference of the parties the convention for biological diver-
sity, Nagoya, Japan. https​://www.cbd.int/sp/eleme​nts/
Catacutan DC, Lasco RD, Piñon CD (2012) Incentive mechanisms
for smallholder Agroforestry: opportunities and challenges in
the Philippines. In: Nair PR, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry-the
future of global land use. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 497–514
Chiputwa B, Ihli HJ, Wainaina P, Gassner A (2020) Accounting for
the invisible value of trees on farms through valuation of eco-
system services. In: Rusinamhodzi L (ed) The role of ecosys-
tem services in sustainable food systems. Academic Press, pp
229–261. https​://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-81643​6-5.00012​-3
Christiaensen L, Demery L (2018) Agriculture in Africa : telling myths
from facts. Directions in development—agriculture and rural
development. World Bank, Washington, DC. https​://openk​nowle​
dge.world​bank.org/handl​e/10986​/28543​
Dawson IK, Guariguata MR, Loo J, Weber JC, Lengkeek A, Bush D,
Cornelius J, Guarino L, Kindt R, Orwa C, Russell J (2013) What
is the relevance of smallholders’ agroforestry systems for conserv-
ing tropical tree species and genetic diversity in circa situm, in situ
and ex situ settings? A review. Biodiver Conser 22(2):301–324.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1053​1-012-0429-5
Di Gregorio M, Nurrochmat DR, Paavola J, Sari IM, Fatorelli L, Pra-
mova E, Locatelli B, Brockhaus M, Kusumadewi SD (2017) Cli-
mate policy integration in the land use sector: mitigation, adapta-
tion and sustainable development linkages. Environ Sci Policy
67:35–43. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsc​i.2016.11.004
Dobie P, Zinngrebe Y, Vidal A, Gassner A, Kumar C (2019) Position
on inclusion of agricultural lands as contributing to conservation
of biodiversity in the post-2020 biodiversity agenda. Trees on
Farms for Biodiversity programme, World Agroforestry, Nairobi,
Kenia
Duit A, Hall O, Mikusinski G, Angelstam P (2009) Saving the wood-
peckers: social capital, governance, and policy performance. J
Environm Develop 18(1):42–61. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10704​
96508​32930​2
Esparcia J (2014) Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis
from European innovative projects. J Rural Studies 34:1–4. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurs​tud.2013.12.004
FAO (2005) Realising the benefits of agroforestry, State of the Worlds
Forests, pp 88–97
FAO (2013) Advancing Agroforestry on the Policy Agenda: A guide
for decision-makers, by Buttoud G, in collaboration with Ajayi O,
Detlefsen G, Place F, Torquebiau E. Agroforestry Working Paper
FAO (2019) The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agri-
culture, Bélanger J, Pilling D (eds.). FAO Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. Rome. 572 pp.
URL: https​://www.fao.org/3/CA312​9EN/CA312​9EN.pdf
Fagerholm N, Torralba M, Burgess PJ, Plieninger T (2016) A sys-
tematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European
agroforestry. Ecol Ind 62:47–65. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoli​
nd.2015.11.016
Galaz V, Crona B, Österblom H, Olsson P, Folke C (2012) Polycen-
tric systems and interacting planetary boundaries - emerging
governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine bio-
diversity. Ecol Econ 1(81):21–32. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecole​
con.2011.11.012
13
Sustainability Science
HLPE (2019) Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sus-
tainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security
and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on
Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food
Security, Rome
Hauck J, Schmidt J, Werner A (2016) Using social network analysis to
identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance
and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. Ecol Soc
21(2):49. https​://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08596​-21024​9
Hauck J, Stein C, Schiffer E, Vandewalle M (2015) Seeing the for-
est and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in
environmental governance. Global Environm Change 35:400–410.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOEN​VCHA.2015.09.022
Hauck J, Schiffer E (2012) Between intuition and indicators – Using
Net-Map for visual and qualitative social network analysis, In:
Gamper M, Reschke L, Schönhuth M (eds.) Knoten und Kanten
2.0. Soziale Netzwerkanalyse in der Medienforschung und der
Kulturanthropologie, Transcript, Bielefeld, pp 231– 257
Hogl K, Kleinschmit D, Rayner J (2016) Achieving policy integra-
tion across fragmented policy domains: forests, agriculture, cli-
mate and energy. Environm Plann C 34(3):399–414. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/02637​74X16​64481​5
IPBES (2019) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Eco-
system Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat-
form, on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services, Germany: Bonn
IUCN and WRI (2014) A guide to the Restoration Opportunities
Assessment Methodology (ROAM): Assessing forest landscape
restoration opportunities at the national or sub-national level.
Working Paper (Road-test edition). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN,
125pp
Isaac M, Matous P (2017) Social network ties predict land use diversity
and land use change: a case study in Ghana. Reg Environ Change
17(6):1823–1833. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1011​3-017-1151-3
Isaac M, Erickson B, Quashie-Sam S, Timmer V (2007) Transfer of
knowledge on agroforestry management practices: the structure
of farmer advice networks. Ecol Soc 12(2):32. https​://www.ecolo​
gyand​socie​ty.org/vol12​/iss2/art32​/
Jordan A, Lenschow A (2010) Environmental policy integration: a state
of the art review. Environm Policy Govern 20(3):147–158. https​
://doi.org/10.1002/eet.539
Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmen-
tal benefits. Agrofor Syst 76:1. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1045​
7-009-9229-7
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, Boelee E, Cools J, van Hoof L, Hospes O, Kok
M, Peerlings J, van Tatenhove J, Termeer CJ, Visseren-Hamakers
IJ (2018) Identifying barriers and levers of biodiversity main-
streaming in four cases of transnational governance of land and
water. Environ Sci Policy 85:132–140. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsc​i.2018.03.011
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, Kok MT, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Termeer CJ
(2017) Mainstreaming biodiversity in economic sectors: an analyt-
ical framework. Biol Cons 210:145–156. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
bioco​n.2017.03.029
Kassie GW (2018) Agroforestry and farm income diversification: syn-
ergy or trade-off? The case of Ethiopia. Environm Syst Res 6:8.
https​://doi.org/10.1186/s4006​8-017-0085-6
Larson AM, Pacheco P, Toni F, Vallejo M (2007) The effects of for-
estry decentralization on access to livelihood assets. J Environ
Dev 16(3):251–68. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10704​96507​30622​0
Laurance WF, Sayer J, Cassman KG (2014) Agricultural expansion and
its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol Evol 29(2):107–116.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.001
Sustainability Science
Leigh Star S (2010) This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the
origin of a concept. Sci Technol Human Values 35(5):601–617.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/01622​43910​37762​4
Lelong B, Stark M, Hauck J, Leuenberger T, Thronicker I (2016) A
visual network perspective on social interaction and space: using
net-map and wennmaker in participatory social-spatial research.
Europa Regional 23(2):5–19
Lorenz K, Lal R (2014) Soil organic carbon sequestration in agrofor-
estry systems. Rev Agron Sustain Develop 34(2):443–454. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/s1359​3-014-0212-y
Magliocca NR, Rudel TK, Verburg PH, McConnell WJ, Mertz O, Ger-
stner K, Heinimann A, Ellis EC (2015) Synthesis in land change
science: methodological patterns, challenges, and guidelines. Reg
Environ Change 15(2):211–226. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1011​
3-014-0626-8
Manolache S, Nita A, Ciocanea CM, Popescu VD, Rozylowicz L
(2018) Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 govern-
ance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in
Romania. J Environ Manage 212:54–64. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvm​an.2018.01.076
Marjokorpi A, Ruokolainen K (2003) The role of traditional forest
gardens in the conservation of tree species in West Kaliman-
tan Indonesia. Biodivers Conser 12(4):799–822. https​://doi.
org/10.1023/A:10224​87631​270
McAllister RR, Robinson CJ, Maclean K, Guerrero AM, Collins K,
Taylor BM, De Barro PJ (2015) From local to central: a network
analysis of who manages plant pest and disease outbreaks across
scales. Ecol Soc. https​://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07469​-20016​7
Meinzen-Dick R, DiGregorio M, McCarthy N (2004) Methods for
studying collective action in rural development. Agric Syst
82:197–214. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.006
Moreno G, Aviron S, Berg S, Crous-Duran J, Franca A, de Jalón
SG, Hartel T, Mirck J, Pantera A, Palma JHN, Paulo JA (2018)
Agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value in
Europe: provision of commercial goods and other ecosystem
services. Agrofor Syst 92(4):877–891. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1045​7-017-0126-1
Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D, Hughes
TP (2017) Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems:
sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Inter-
discip Rev 8(5):e479. https​://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.479
Noordwijk van M, ed (2019) Sustainable development through trees
on farms: Agroforestry in its fifth decade. Bogor, Indonesia:
World Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Nunan F, Campbell A, Foster E (2012) Environmental mainstream-
ing: the organisational challenges of policy integration. Pub-
lic Admin Develop 32(3):262–277. https​: //doi.org/10.1002/
pad.1624
Oosten C, Uzamukunda A, Runhaar H (2018) Corrigendum to
Strategies for achieving environmental policy integration at
the landscape level. A framework illustrated with an analysis
of landscape governance in Rwanda. Environm Sci. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsc​i.2018.03.027
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of
Social-Ecological Systems. Proc R Soc London Ser B 274:1931.
https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.11721​33
Paavola J, Gouldson A, Kluvánková-Oravská T (2009) Interplay of
actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of
biodiversity. Environm Policy Govern 19(3):148–158. https​://
doi.org/10.1002/eet.505
Persson Å, Runhaar H (2018) Conclusion: Drawing lessons for Envi-
ronmental Policy Integration and prospects for future research.
Environ Sci Policy 85:141–145. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsc​
i.2018.04.008
Pretty J, Smith D (2004) Social capital in biodiversity conservation
and management. Conserv Biol 18(3):631–638. https​://doi.org
/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00126​.x
Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in
African agriculture. Inter J Agricul Sustain 9(1):5–24. https​://doi.
org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0583
Priess JA, Mimler M, Klein AM, Schwarze S, Tscharntke T, Steffan-
Dewenter I (2007) Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination
services and economic returns in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecol
Appl 17(2):407–417. https​://doi.org/10.1890/05-1795
Putnam R (2004) Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital
in contemporary society. Oxford University Press Inc, New York
Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J,
Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A
typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
management. J Environm Manag 90(5):1933–49. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2009.01.001
Rodríguez L, Cisneros E, Pequeño T, Fuentes M, Zinngrebe Y (2018)
Building adaptive capacity in changing social-ecological sys-
tems: integrating knowledge in communal land-use planning
in the Peruvian amazon. Sustainability 10(2):511. https​://doi.
org/10.3390/su100​20511​
Runhaar H, Wilk B, Driessen P, Dunphy N, Persson Å, Meadowcroft
J, Mullally G (2020) Policy integration. In: Biermann F, Kim
RE (eds) Architectures of earth system governance: institutional
complexity and structural transformation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Saint Ville AS, Hickey GM, Locher U, Phillip LE (2016) Exploring the
role of social capital in influencing knowledge flows and innova-
tion in smallholder farming communities in the Caribbean. Food
Secur 8(3):535–549. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s12571​ -016-0581-y
Sanginga PC, Kamugisha RN, Martin AM (2007) The dynamics of
social capital and conflict management in multiple resource
regimes: a case of the southwestern highlands of Uganda. Ecol
Soc 12(1):6
Sarkki S, Niemelä J, Tinch R, Jäppinen JP, Nummelin M, Toivonen
H, Von Weissenberg M (2016) Are national biodiversity strate-
gies and action plans appropriate for building responsibilities for
mainstreaming biodiversity across policy sectors? The case of
Finland. J Environm Plann Manag 59(8):377–1396. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09640​568.2015.10763​84
Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Ven-
ter M, Klintuni Boedhihartono A, Day M, Garcia C, van Oosten
C, Buck LE (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to rec-
onciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses.
Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(21):8349–8356. https​://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.12105​95110​
Schiffer E, Hauck J (2010) Net-Map: collecting social network data
and facilitating network learning through participatory influ-
ence network mapping. Field Methods 22:231–249. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/15258​22X10​37479​8
Schleyer C, Lux A, Mehring M, Görg C (2017) Ecosystem services as
a boundary concept: arguments from social ecology. Sustainability
9(7):1107. https​://doi.org/10.3390/su907​1107
Schröter B, Sattler C, Graef F, Chen C, Delgadillo E, Hackenberg
I, Halle EM, Hirt A, Kubatzki A, Matzdorf B (2018) Strengths
and weaknesses of the Net-Map tool for participatory social
network analysis in resource management: experience from
case studies conducted on four continents. Methodol Innov
11(2):2059799118787754. https​://doi.org/10.1177/20597​99118​
78775​4
Scobie M (2016) Policy coherence in climate governance in Caribbean
small island developing states. Environ Sci Policy 58:16–28. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsc​i.2015.12.008
Sears RR, Cronkleton P, Villanueva FP, Ruiz MM, del Arco MPO
(2018) Farm-forestry in the Peruvian Amazon and the feasibility
13

of its regulation through forest policy reform. Forest Policy
Econom 87:49–58. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpo​l.2017.11.004
Somarriba E, Carreño-Rocabado G, Amores F, Caicedo W, de Pélichy
SOG, Cerda R, Ordóñez JC (2017) Trees on farms for livelihoods,
conservation of biodiversity and carbon storage: evidence from
Nicaragua on this “invisible” resource. In: Montagnini F (ed) Inte-
grating landscapes: agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and
food sovereignty. Springer, Berlin, pp 369–393
Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Burgess PJ, Moreno G, Plieninger T (2016)
Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and eco-
system services? A meta-analysis. Agr Ecosyst Environ 230:150–
161. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002
Valdivia C, Barbieri C, Gold MA (2012) Between forestry and farm-
ing: policy and environmental implications of the barriers to
agroforestry adoption. Canadian J Agricul Econom Revue Cana-
dienne d’agroeconomie 60(2):155–175. https​://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1744-7976.2012.01248​.x
13
View publication stats
Sustainability Science
Wilson MH, Lovell ST (2016) Agroforestry— the next step in sus-
tainable and resilient agriculture. Sustainability 8(6):574. https​
://doi.org/10.3390/su806​0574
Zinngrebe Yves M (2018) Mainstreaming across political sectors:
Assessing biodiversity policy integration in Peru. Environm
Policy Govern 28(3):153–171. https​://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1800
Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu J, Ahrends A, Bossio D, Trabucco A, Van
Noordwijk M, Wang M (2016) Global tree cover and biomass
carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to
global and national carbon budgets. Scient Rep 6:29987. https​://
doi.org/10.1038/srep2​9987
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.